Class Action

"Workers Can't Catch a Break from Calif. Court"

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

This morning's Recorder has an article on the Court of Appeal's opinion, handed down yesterday, in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (July 22, 2008). The Brinker court reversed an order granting class certification of meal period (and other) claims after concluding, contrary to Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 949 (2005), that "meal breaks need only be 'made available' and not 'ensured.'" Slip op. at 4.

I was co-counsel for the employees in the appellate-level proceedings, and my normal policy is not to blog about my own cases (with an occasional exception if they are already getting outside press or blogosphere coverage). I am putting up this post only because I must clarify a comment that was attributed to me in the Recorder article:

[Kralowec] also said the 4th District's decision creates an appellate split that likely will ensure Supreme Court review. In Cicairos v. Summit Logistics Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 949, Sacramento's 3rd District ruled in 2005 that employers have an affirmative duty to ensure that employees receive meal periods.

I do believe that the new Brinker decision creates a split in authority with Cicairos, and I also believe that the Supreme Court often grants review to resolve issues that are the subject of a split among the lower courts, particularly when two Court of Appeal panels have handed down conflicting published opinions. However, I did not say that I thought that in this specific case, the split between Brinker and Cicairos "likely will ensure Supreme Court review." I would never say something so presumptuous. It would have been more accurate to say that Brinker creates an appellate split, that such splits often lead to Supreme Court review, that Brinker is a particularly appropriate case for review, and that I certainly hope that the Supreme Court decides to grant review.

Today's Daily Journal also reports that "Panel Rejects Class Status for Meal Breaks" (subscription), and here is what Wage Law has to say:

Brinker disagrees with many prior opinions, most specifically, Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 962-963, which it discussed at length, and Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1193, which it did not even mention, and more generally, a string of cases which promote class actions as an efficient way to resolve wage and hour disputes and a string of cases which discuss the remedial nature of wage and hour laws in California. With Brinker and Cicairos presenting such starkly contrasting views on California law, with Brinker presenting so many novel ideas regarding wage and hour claims and class actions, and with so many U.S. District Court cases disagreeing with Cicairos and each other, this case looks like an outstanding candidate for Supreme Court review.

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on July 23, 2008 (boomark / email).